tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1989021645293349025..comments2024-03-18T17:09:55.964-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The simple trick allowing citizens to bypass gerrymanderingDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27200408863210860982013-11-26T11:30:44.060-08:002013-11-26T11:30:44.060-08:00Even without gerrymandering, the very concept of f...Even without gerrymandering, the very concept of first past the post voting assures that the strongest minority, however defined, will have a political monopoly. That there was separation of powers at one time respected, and that the different branches of government happen to monopolize separately on different schedules tended to give some balance. <br /><br />Clearly throughout the federalist papers, they were afraid of the kind of factionalism and indeciveness that they felt doomed the Roman republic, but such political monopolization can already be extremely disenfranchising, even before we get to preset circumstances.<br /><br />In many countries a political party or viewpoint that polls 10-20% of the electorate would likely end up with at least some representation in a parliament. Perhaps even holding at least a minor cabinet post/ministry. In the US it is very possible to do so and yet have no representation whatsoever in the government. This pretty much makes it impossible for even strong political movements to emerge over time into a majority party. <br /><br />The consequence of gerrymandering simply moves this problem further down the chain, where the strongest single faction in both the now stagnant two parties can monopolize each. Too often "strongest" faction is synonymous with best financed, especially at the primary level, and the end result is truly dollar democracy.David Sugarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15571126520796116865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28527130145318716222013-11-22T17:31:45.809-08:002013-11-22T17:31:45.809-08:00Tacitus2:
If, and some people feel this to be s...Tacitus2:<br /><br /><i><br /> If, and some people feel this to be so, the US is now too big and complex for the legislative branch to write effective laws, then the other two branches will be pressed to take up some of those functions. Executive orders. Selective enforcement of laws. Court rulings to effectively enact laws and court injunctions to block them. <br /></i><br /><br />The removal of the filibuster will make it easier for the legislature to function, not harder. And even if your concerns are correct, aren't executive orders to get around restrictions on the executive (well, signing statements anyway) more of a Republican thing? These days, even judicial activism is no longer specifically the realm of the Dems. So if you're worried about those things on purely partisan grounds, I'd say don't worry, your team is winning.<br /><br />If you're worrying about them on non-partisan principle, then just as I told my old friend, it might not be nearly as bad as your imagination is running away with. Meannwhile, where were you during the Bush administration when the exectutive really WAS flaunting the law? I wanted Presient Obama to sign the law de-funding Obamacare to raise the debt ceiling and then issue a signing statement saying "I'm not considering myself bound by that de-funding part," the way W used to, but the difference is Obama doesn't actually do stuff like that.<br /><br /><i><br />This is an unsettling prospect on the face of it. And if you further consider the realities of it it gets worse.<br /><br />The legal profession leans heavily towards the Democrats. The civil service generally and government workers specifically do likewise. These entities are entirely justified in adopting whatever views they hold to be dear, but it makes the dwindling of the legislative branch a matter of concern. <br /></i><br /><br />Again, I see more executive and judicial power-grabbing on the right than on the left. <br /><br /><i><br />We now have a population that trends towards centerist/conservative views and regards Congress with contempt. <br /></i><br /><br />So doesn't that tell you something? Or are you buying into the meme I've heard for 30 years now, that Republicans lose elections because they're not pure enough in their right-wingedness?<br /><br /><i><br />We may end up with a Congress that becomes irrelevant and a government by apparatchik. It is hard to vote out an Assistant Under Secretary. Or a Federal Judge. <br /></i><br /><br />I can't believe you're mentioning federal judges in this context. Conservatives have stacked the federal courts for decades now.<br /><br /><i><br />In this light the various kerfuffles that Progressives dismiss as non-scandals (IRS for instance) should chill to the bone anyone who loves freedom more than any specific party.<br /></i><br /><br />I already explained why I don't consider the IRS "scandal" a real one in a separate post.<br /><br />Anyone who loves freedom has to mean more than "the freedom to willingly enslave yourself to a corporation in exchange for the necessities of life." I saw a bit further down that you'd favor a single-payer health system (so would I). So what are you blaming Obamacare for? Not being progressive ENOUGH?<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32104158548553273762013-11-22T17:20:11.130-08:002013-11-22T17:20:11.130-08:00Tacitus2,
I just read through your rant about pro...Tacitus2,<br /><br />I just read through your rant about progressives about to take over all of society by judicial fiat, executive orders, and functioning as civil servants, and I'm getting worried about you.<br /><br />Really, I used to have a friend on the old comics-related list I talk about (and not just an "internet friend", we met in person at conventions) who was as conservative as they come, but we could have intelligent conversations and debates...until November 5, 2008. Somehow, Obama's election unhinged him. He started repeating FOX talking points as settled fact...all the things this president-elect was going to do to destroy America. I tried to say "Let's see what actually happens when he's president--it can't possibly be as bad as you are afraid of," but he was having none of it. I couldn't debate rationally with the guy any more, and when he accused me of being a danger to my child because of my political beliefs, I stopped trying.<br /><br />I'm hearing echoes of the beginning stages of that time in your speculations on what is coming next. There's no harm (and great good actually) in letting the imagination come up with thought experiments--I do it all the time--but for gosh sakes if the castles you build in the clouds are that scary, don't move into them.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8343901336697501162013-11-22T17:02:30.874-08:002013-11-22T17:02:30.874-08:00Tacitus and Dr Brin seem to agree that the IRS &qu...Tacitus and Dr Brin seem to agree that the IRS "scandal" really is a scandal. I'm not so sure.<br /><br />From what I understand came out months later, Congressman Issa's committee went to the IRS and subpeonaed documents about their vetting of whehter groups are political or not (relevant to tax-exempt status) but specifically asked ONLY (that's emphasis, not shouting) for such documentation about the Tea Party. No surprise then that that particular batch of evidence made it appear that the IRS was focusing on one particular group.<br /><br />It turned out later that the IRS was really doing its job--weeding out political groups from those eligible for tax-exemption. Greenpeace was targeted just as the Tea Party was.<br /><br />The elephant in the room is that the Tea Party IS (emphasis again) a political group? What is scandalous about the IRS identifying them as such. I'm slowly getting the idea, whether it's this IRS "scandal" or charges of "judicial activism" or "legislative overreach", that the Republican complaint amounts to "WE'RE the real Americans and OUR values are the true American values, so extremism in defense of OUR side is justified, but when THEY do it, it's illegal/treasonous/reprehensible, a threat to the nation, and must be stopped at all costs."<br /><br />If I was still on a comics-specific list, I could be sure I'd be understood by quoting Adam Warlock saying to the his enemy, "I reject your truth, Magus!"LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69011441577267280572013-11-22T16:53:43.843-08:002013-11-22T16:53:43.843-08:00Tacitus,
I know you have a personal thing about a...Tacitus,<br /><br />I know you have a personal thing about all-caps, and I have in fact checked myself from using them many times in responses to you. But understand, most people who type a single word of a sentence in all caps (as opposed to whole sentences or paragraphs) are simply indicating emphasis, which often is necessary to understand the sense of the sentence.<br /><br />It's not meant as an insult.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27295712943121291832013-11-22T16:51:34.503-08:002013-11-22T16:51:34.503-08:00SteveO said
Alas, they don't seem to be getti...SteveO said<br /><br />Alas, they don't seem to be getting any saner nationally. We have some good ones locally though.<br /><br />This is one of the things I have most difficulty with - how can the "good ones locally" continue to operate under the banner of the loonies Nationally?????<br /><br />I suspect anybody who is capable of that level of doublethink should NOT be elected to any public officeDuncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55555930091583122172013-11-22T14:53:20.009-08:002013-11-22T14:53:20.009-08:00Not sure why locumranch is having a hard time unde...Not sure why locumranch is having a hard time understanding, but maybe some specifics will help.<br /><br />I am centrist by nature, I used to moslty vote Republican but the problem is that the party left me behind during its rush off the cliff to the right over there.<br /><br />Then my district elected Betsy Markey, who held some plain loathsome views and I wondered what I could have done to be more effective at preventing her election. (I met her once too, and let us say came away with a consistent impression of her.)<br /><br />Anyway, it was around that time I ran across Dr. Brin's idea of joining the dominant party in order to have a voice in the primary, aka in my district, the "real" election. My district hadn't elected a blue for as long as I knew about.<br /><br />I didn't do it to be a spoiler, but to try to inject some rationality back into the party and end up with more centrist candidates.<br /><br />Pretty soon after that, my district has turned deep purple, with tax measures passing and failing, politicians of all parties at all levels getting elected. So now politicians know they have to appeal to a broad and diverse base, and we have had some really good ones recently too. And a bad one (our mayor) who lost because he had eliminated all civility in the City Council. He tried to run again this season, but lost again, even though he had some big outside money and a new set of TEA party talking points. Some of the more conservative council members did win.<br /><br />I doubt I had much if any role in all that, but it is an instructive anecdote I think. Now I keep my affiliation so that I get the Republican mailings.<br /><br />Alas, they don't seem to be getting any saner nationally. We have some good ones locally though.SteveOnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89388395180721521242013-11-22T12:45:17.032-08:002013-11-22T12:45:17.032-08:00"Liberals are pragmatic, calm, willing to neg..."Liberals are pragmatic, calm, willing to negotiate."<br /><br />Dude, you do realize you used five ALL CAPS and one semi Godwin in that response?<br /><br /> <br />Time to sleep now, night shift a'coming.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44958533932662892212013-11-22T11:59:19.335-08:002013-11-22T11:59:19.335-08:00TAcitus, alas, your recommendation that we drop la...TAcitus, alas, your recommendation that we drop labels is not useful when labels are ALL that Fox and its wholly-owned party will talk about. Labels and anecdotes and NEVER problem-solving, bipartisan negotiation. When Sean Hannity is watched as little (by noding dittoheads talked into rage) as the ranters at MSNBC are watched, then I will know that Civil War is over and we can talk turkey.<br /><br />But Fox is hugely profitable because it has close to a hundred million nodding enraged, driven-loony viewers. And MSNBC teeters on bankruptcy because liberals don't like Nuremberg Rallies.<br /><br />Your questions about affirmative action are valid… and left over from the 1980s, back when forced bussing and REAL racial selection bias were very very legitimate conservative complaints. Indeed, the bussing thing was so starkly insane that I said so in the then existing equivalent of a blog! (Saying so to leftists, face to face.) I have NEVER said insanity is a monopoly of the right.<br /><br />But at THIS moment in time, there is no comparison. Liberals are pragmatic, calm, willing to negotiate. God help us if they radicalize to match the insanity in Red America! <br /><br />Oh, and that could happen, if wealth disparities get worse and torment the middle class.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11805568960678803542013-11-22T11:36:19.235-08:002013-11-22T11:36:19.235-08:00David
I find myself with a little more time just ...David<br /><br />I find myself with a little more time just now, so hang around I shall. <br /><br />I think we should just quit talking about Republican and Democrat labels. I think conservative and progressive are more apt and useful. Glad you concur with my general statement that center-right applies to America on average. I suppose in the UK it is centre-right.<br /><br />Progress versus...what? Nobody but strawmen is proposing a return to some bygone era. It is a question of headlong progress versus slower, evolutionary change. The potential catastrophe of Obamacare may in the long run cost as much as W's Iraqi adventures. (Or not, just musing here.) It apparently looks to a steady majority of Americans as if it was an ill considered, ill planned, poorly executed endevour. I will not address the issue of whether it is a well intended mess or something else.<br /><br />Again, stop doing five minute surveys. Ask deeper questions. Your oft quoted factoids on party affiliation may well be superficial fluff. (Or not I suppose, who knows?)<br /><br />Perhaps an example. I am typing on the fly and so may tick people off by this. <br /><br />Let's say that Army officers are 90% in favor of affirmative action. Fair enough, I think you could get a similar result on a quickie survey generally.<br /><br />Now, ask if they would be in favor of a member of an under represented class with equal qualifications should be promoted over them.<br /><br />Then ask if a less qualified officer (test scores, seniority, participation in various combat schools) should be promoted over them and asked to lead them into battle.<br /><br />And would they feel the same way if it were their son or daughter wearing the PFC stripe?<br /><br />I am not casting any aspersions or indicating how I, you, or they would answer these questions. I am simply making my point that the world is a complicated, complicated place. Chucking out dusty factoids is more what I expect of Fox News.<br /><br />Hey, lets lighten up. A link to the future of tech ed...<br /><br />http://www.wqow.com/story/23989417/2013/11/16/robots-battle-it-out-at-area-school<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55969040068003887202013-11-22T11:05:07.926-08:002013-11-22T11:05:07.926-08:00Tacitus, it's always good when you rejoin us. ...Tacitus, it's always good when you rejoin us. <br /><br />True, by European standards Obama is a center right politician and the vast majority of "liberals" in America are pro-market and pro-competition. They work harder than Europeans and believe in lots of individual responsibility and take few vacation days. Which is one more reason that Sean Hannity is just about the most evil man in the country, for nightly calling such people "socialists and lefty flakes."<br /><br />But those are not the fault lines at issue here. By the hoary, lobotomizing "left-right axis" Americans may be slightly right of center - on average. <br /><br />But by the Blue vs Red axis, the future vs past axis, the sane vs stark-jibbering-loony axis… by all of those axes there is no question that a majority of Americans want the cult of Rupert and his Sa'udi co-owners to go to hell.<br /><br />You claim that lawyers and civil servants lean blue. Of course they do! Name one profession of skill and knowledge (including your own) that doesn't! Thirty years ago, maybe 40% of scientists and 60% of medical doctors called themselves Republican. Now it's maybe 5% and 20% each. The smarty -pants types are voting with their feet, as Fox assails every non-oligarch elite.<br /><br />You citation of the IRS "scandal" -- using some trigger words to commence entirely legal vetting processes -- is justified outrage at a minor power abuse that was caught and the idiots fired. To compare that to -- say -- flying twelve BILLION dollars in raw cash into Baghdad, handing it over to Bush family contractors -- and never seeing a dime of it, ever again? Disproportionate is not a useful word here. we need another.<br /><br />===<br />Paul451 I like your return to the moon challenge! But it should be ENTIRELY done privately. No govt help before the prize. I don't want NASA's slender budget impinged by going back to that sterile, useless rock.<br /><br />===<br />PS… Tacitus you are a gentleman and need apologize to no one. Hang around!<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24041803633383063722013-11-22T10:28:09.180-08:002013-11-22T10:28:09.180-08:00Tacitus, snark's fun, if not overdone. I was a...Tacitus, snark's fun, if not overdone. I was able to vote for John McCain in the 2000 primary in Missouri without any problem (shrub seemed much too risky for my taste.) don't know if such a thing's as easily doable these days. Would like to see a Presidential election where the choices weren't conservative and even more conservative (I voted Kucinich in the '08 primary.).Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29609083147266507362013-11-22T10:20:56.207-08:002013-11-22T10:20:56.207-08:00Many of the above comments show a poor grasp of th...Many of the above comments show a poor grasp of the concept of 'gerrymandering' (aka 'political redistricting') because citizens, regardless of their political affiliation, cannot even cast a primary vote for a district candidate unless they actually reside in the gerrymandered district in question.<br /><br />Of course, it could invalidate future attempts to gerrymander by party affiliation. We could then become a non-transparent nation of non-aligned political liars, who say one thing but vote another, all in effort to become politically fair & balanced.<br /><br />We could then spread political misinformation about our neighbors, turning one against the other by 'outing' them as being LGBT sympathizers, Pro-Life Communists or some such rot, until the very fabric of organized society breaks down into political & culture anarchy, allowing us to reap the wages of Cain.<br /><br />Sounds good.<br /><br />Death to Gerrymandering !!<br /><br /><br />Best.locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63033133039598795652013-11-22T09:31:22.778-08:002013-11-22T09:31:22.778-08:00Paul 451.
Point taken. Counter point. What we a...Paul 451.<br /><br />Point taken. Counter point. What we are doing now really does not work in most cases either.<br /><br />Matthew<br />Polling is far from science. So much is in the details and at best it can give surface info. I for instance am a conservative in almost all respects. I think the only sane healthcare system is a basic single payer system that is intelligently run. You want frills (Harley Street to my Brit friends) buy a supplement. This concept breaks up on the rocks of "intelligently run". Other examples could be given but I strongly suspect that in a focused format, say a one hour interview, most Americans would express views that would be considered center/conservative. Why not? Faults and all this is the greatest country on earth. We as a society have a great thing going. Don't mess it up unless you know exactly what you are doing.<br /><br />(cough, Obamacare).<br /><br />Sorry for that particle of snark that escaped my civility shield.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29636458684091390922013-11-22T08:23:32.114-08:002013-11-22T08:23:32.114-08:00In a previous thread, Rob H asked for
" a new...In a previous thread, Rob H asked for<br /><i>" a new Lunar Program building a base on the Moon and a permanent scientific settlement on the edge of the Moon so we can send people and rovers (and a radio telescope) into the Far Side...) and make people PROUD to be Americans and proud to be part of this united nation."</i><br /><br />I'd suggest a different tack. According to online inflation calculators, Apollo/Gemini cost the equivalent of $230 billion in inflation corrected modern dollars, and at the time it consumed up to 4% of the US budget. 2019 happens the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. And today, so-called "New Space" seems to be delivering the most bang for the NASA buck compared to any other NASA funding model, and the most interest in space from the public and media.<br /><br />So, putting all those things together...<br /><br />Have Obama call for a National Prize of $2.3 billion for the first private US company which... "before this decade is out, succeeds in landing a person on the moon and returning them safely to Earth". An actual moon landing, 50 years after Apollo 11 and reproduced by a private company for just 1% of the original's budget. And giving them just 6 years makes it <i>hard</i>. A challenge worthy of a great nation. But I believe it's possible. And energising. And dangerous, therefore interesting.<br /><br />[For comparison, NASA is spending about $2.7b/yr developing SLS and Orion. So far over $10b with very little to show for it.]Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73948392462102222912013-11-22T08:07:50.479-08:002013-11-22T08:07:50.479-08:00SteveO said...
"You don't register with t...SteveO said...<br /><i>"You don't register with the party in control to be a spoiler, you register to pick the best that party has to offer."</i><br /><br />However, it can serve both goals. If you select a moderate, you may suppress the deep (and crazy) base. Reducing voter turn-out in the major, giving the your preferred side a fighting chance. Worse case, you add a moderate voice to your enemy's congressional ranks.<br /><br />The worst possible "spoiler" tactic is to vote for the most insane other-party candidate, believing them to be unelectable. If you fail, you get more nutters elected.<br /><br />Locumranch,<br />The anti-gerrymandering tactic is intended for districts which are... wait for it... gerrymandered. Therefore SteveO's preferred candidate of his preferred party has no chance of being elected anyway. Failing to vote in the minority party's primary has as much effect on the general election as would failing to vote on American Idol.<br /><br />Caesar A Santos,<br />Re: Brazil and compulsory voting.<br /><br />The US could also try an anti-poll tax. Pay a modest fee to be permitted not to vote.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36535715497251740652013-11-22T08:02:34.104-08:002013-11-22T08:02:34.104-08:00Tacitus,
Re: Banning Gerrymandering via cartograph...Tacitus,<br />Re: Banning Gerrymandering via cartographic rules.<br /><br />I'm not sure that will work. At home, the electoral commission redistricts after every election based on maths, not shapes. The rule is that if the next election produced the same exact vote at each ballot place, the results after redistricting should match the overall state result. So if Party A gets 49% of the state vote but wins half-plus-one districts, then the new districts are created so that in theory Party B would win half plus one one seats <i>if the next election had exactly the same vote</i>. The result is that at least one district become hostile to the sitting Party A member and must be genuinely won in the next election. That way, any changes in the next election should be due to actual demographic and voting intention changes, not boundaries.<br /><br />Matthew,<br /><i>"Polling shows a majority of those same self-identified conservatives support single payer healthcare, mandatory background checks for gun buyers, increased taxes on the wealthy, and sensible steps to fight climate change."</i><br /><br />Well, that seems pretty conservative to me.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24174607802710823822013-11-22T07:32:26.325-08:002013-11-22T07:32:26.325-08:00Tacitus, a majority of Americans self-identify as ...Tacitus, a majority of Americans self-identify as conservative. When asked their opinions on specific issues and aggregated Americans are overwhelmingly liberal. Conservatism exists as a brand. As an actual set of principles for governing, not so much. Polling shows a majority of those same self-identified conservatives support single payer healthcare, mandatory background checks for gun buyers, increased taxes on the wealthy, and sensible steps to fight climate change. The population regards Congress with contempt because they disagree with them, yet cannot vote the obstructionists out of office.matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91785672485508582522013-11-22T06:24:43.703-08:002013-11-22T06:24:43.703-08:00But briefly on the "long term" regards e...But briefly on the "long term" regards ending the filibuster option.<br /><br />This speaks to the balance of power between the three branches of government. If, and some people feel this to be so, the US is now too big and complex for the legislative branch to write effective laws, then the other two branches will be pressed to take up some of those functions. Executive orders. Selective enforcement of laws. Court rulings to effectively enact laws and court injunctions to block them. <br /><br />This is an unsettling prospect on the face of it. And if you further consider the realities of it it gets worse.<br /><br />The legal profession leans heavily towards the Democrats. The civil service generally and government workers specifically do likewise. These entities are entirely justified in adopting whatever views they hold to be dear, but it makes the dwindling of the legislative branch a matter of concern. <br /><br />We now have a population that trends towards centerist/conservative views and regards Congress with contempt. We may end up with a Congress that becomes irrelevant and a government by apparatchik. It is hard to vote out an Assistant Under Secretary. Or a Federal Judge. <br /><br />In this light the various kerfuffles that Progressives dismiss as non-scandals (IRS for instance) should chill to the bone anyone who loves freedom more than any specific party.<br /><br />Or maybe not. Punditry is not a particularly useful occupation. We all worry about our children's futures but our worries have different flavors.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60483493041617819782013-11-22T04:30:36.448-08:002013-11-22T04:30:36.448-08:00matthew:
The Dems aren't giving up much with ...matthew:<br /><i><br />The Dems aren't giving up much with the new filibuster rules - they never used the rules in the way that the Repubs have. If you give away a weapon that you do not wish to use (often) for another benefit, what have you lost?<br /></i><br /><br />The "talking" filibuster as originally practiced is a delaying tactic while one presuably gathers support for the minority position. It is not supposed to work as a de-facto veto. If the Democrats gave up their right to the delaying tactic, it's only because it had morphed into something evil instead.<br /><br /><i><br />And what did the Dems gain? They gained control of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The second highest court in the land. The court that hears IRS cases. EPA cases. Most importantly, DoJ cases. The DC Circuit will be in a position to severely hamper voter suppression tactics. And *that* is what this fight was all about. <br /></i><br /><br />Republicans have been stacking the federal courts for decades with conservatives, all perfectly legally, btw. Now that a Democrat is presdient, they can't stomach him getting his own (perfectly legal) turn? Suddenly it's an outrage that only Republican filibusters stand in the way of? They're whining like babies over what? "WE'RE the only ones who get to stack the court?"LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46045602478043163782013-11-22T04:20:57.440-08:002013-11-22T04:20:57.440-08:00Tacitus,
Yes, all freely conceded that the Democr...Tacitus,<br /><br />Yes, all freely conceded that the Democrats were once the party of the Confederacy and its oligarchs. Had I been an Illinoisan in 1860, I would have voted for the Republican candidate.<br /><br />A few years ago, I was a regular on another internet group that discussed comics. Like this group, we prided ourselves on a high level of discourse and tolerance for differing points of view. The group was adamantly opposed to banning. Well, for whatever reason, one guy started almost-literally begging to BE banned from the list. He spammed the list with nonsensical comments until it was almost un-readable. The moderators still refused to ban him until he started sending actual death threats to members' private e-mail. Finally, RELUCTANTLY, the moderators (for the first time) put in the infrastructure to actually ban a member, just so that they could do it for this one guy. <br /><br />No one was happy about it, but we all understood the necessity. I was one of the last holdouts arguing against banning in principle, but in the end, I saw no other choice, and I agreed with the moderators' final action.<br /><br />Today, I know how Harry Reid feels.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84223150975339795512013-11-21T23:59:30.321-08:002013-11-21T23:59:30.321-08:00Larry
Regards IL I think I was mixing a couple of...Larry<br /><br />Regards IL I think I was mixing a couple of stories. True voter suppression by Democrats? I suppose the Deep South long ago. R used to be the party of Lincoln and various poll taxes and such presumably the work of D, but that was long ago and the world has changed.<br /><br />You of course are not putting words in my mouth regards the filibuster. Time will tell what this change will mean for good or ill.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56371088209851678682013-11-21T22:55:23.803-08:002013-11-21T22:55:23.803-08:00The Dems aren't giving up much with the new fi...The Dems aren't giving up much with the new filibuster rules - they never used the rules in the way that the Repubs have. If you give away a weapon that you do not wish to use (often) for another benefit, what have you lost?<br /><br />And what did the Dems gain? They gained control of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The second highest court in the land. The court that hears IRS cases. EPA cases. Most importantly, DoJ cases. The DC Circuit will be in a position to severely hamper voter suppression tactics. And *that* is what this fight was all about. <br /><br />Obama needed to put his nominees into the DC Circuit before the 2014 elections could change the balance of power in the Senate. Once the DC Circuit has a centrist bent, all those pesky ways that the Repubs are staying in power when in the minority get much, much harder to carry out. This filibuster change will not change the makeup of the 2014 Congress much. But the 2016 Congress will be radically altered because of the rule change. matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67392805195503862472013-11-21T20:25:19.115-08:002013-11-21T20:25:19.115-08:00Again, I say there is a simple solution to disrupt...Again, I say there is a simple solution to disrupt gerrymandering and in doing so reestablish some balance in both Blue and Red states: increase the number of Representatives by at least 100 so that Representatives are based on population instead of percentages of populations. <br /><br />These Representatives will work remotely using secured computer systems that lack any connectivity outside the direct House Chamber/State Office building. Without any USB ports or the like, the computers can't be infested with Malware by idiots who don't understand basic system security.<br /><br />Further, having an extra 100 (or 200! However many really you're willing to pay for!) Representatives will force Lobbyist groups to increase their money and expand their efforts so they're in all 50 states. It will weaken Lobbying efforts and thus increase the power of the people.<br /><br />And it disrupts gerrymandering because the redrawing of districts in at least 46 U.S. States will result in "safe" districts being cut into smaller units which may very well not be as safe. <br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9275182852722668812013-11-21T19:36:00.313-08:002013-11-21T19:36:00.313-08:00From the Washington Post article:
With the Senate...From the Washington Post article:<br /><i><br />With the Senate majority very much up for grabs in midterm elections next year, Democrats placed a big bet on maintaining control of the chamber. GOP leaders have suggested that, if given the Senate majority back, they might further strip filibuster rules so they could dismantle Obama’s landmark domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, on a simple majority vote.<br /><br />In his remarks, McConnell finally turned to Democrats and said that a majority of them had never served in the minority and then lectured the longtime members who knew what it was like to be on the other side.<br /></i><br /><br />Again, the argument against the move seems to be "Just wait until YOU'RE the minority again, and you'll wish the filibuster was still in place." As if the Republicans would think twice about abolishing it themselves at the first opportunity. In fact, what they seem to be threatening is "Well, when we're back in power, then WE'LL blow it up TOO!"<br /><br />"But Larry", I hear Tacitus and others say, "What about all those decades when the Republicans DID allow Democrats to filibuster?" Well, I say, that was back when they still had some respect for the institution and protocol. Today's Republicans are about nothing BUT political considerations. The GOP who filibusters 480 times (or whatever god-awful number it really is) is not the GOP of the Nixon or Reagan years.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.com